Designing and Evaluating a Card Game to Support
High School Students in Applying Their Knowledge of Wo
rld History to Solve Modern Political Issues
Ryohei Ikejiri
ikejiri@i-timemachine.net
Graduate Student
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan

Mio Tsubakimotomtsubaki@fun.ac.jp
Specially Appointed Assistant Professor
Future University Hakodate
Hokkaido, Japan

Toru Fujimototfujimt@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Research Assistant Professor
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan

Yuhei Yamauchi
yamauchi@iii.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Associate Professor
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT
Although researchers have pointed that studying history can serve as a significant source forcultivating alternative solutions to confront contemporary social problems, effective learning
methods to achieve that goal have not been produced. This paper analyzes what types oflearning methods can successfully be used to support high school students in applying theirknowledge of policies in world history to propose potential policies that address modern
political issues. We designed a card game using a deck of cards that describes the policies thatvarious famous figures in world history have proposed to improve economic situations, thepolicies’ historical contexts, and why and how they were implemented. We also designed agame board with a map of Japan to foster connections between historical policies and students’preexisting knowledge, making references to historical learning and cognitive psychology. We
examined the effectiveness of the card game with thirty-six high school students. We firstcompared the students’ pre- and post-test scores concerning their knowledge of policies that
address modern Japan’s economy. Next, we conducted rounds of protocol analysis to learn how
the students interacted while playing the game. The comparison of test scores indicated thatstudents named more policies that stimulate Japan’s economy (p<.01) after playing the game.
In particular, they named more policies concerning cultural and social perspectives. The
protocol analysis demonstrated that the game rules helped students place historical policies into
their specific modern contexts.
Keywords: Historical Learning, Game-Based Learning, Analogy, Collaborative Learning,
Transfer of Learning

INTRODUCTION
It has been proven that an analogy prompts more creative learning, and there has also been growinginterest in historical analogy. For example, with respect to the effect of historical analogy, Lee (2005)
insists that learning about historical causal relationships assists modern people in predicting socialchanges. More concretely, David (2002) suggests that history should not be only about the past and that
history can provide alternative solutions to modern problems that have similarities. Actually, often, there
are cases in which American politicians apply historical lessons when making political judgments aboutsocial problems or forming diplomatic policies that cannot be judged based on individual experience

(Abbott & Adler, 1989). Thus, studying history can serve as a significant source for cultivating alternative
solutions to confront contemporary social problems.
In the past, while historical learning has been viewed as the ability to memorize specific events andthe dates on which they occurred, recent researchers have come to insist that historical knowledge must
play a role in learners’ practical life and that the ability to acquire a sense of historical analogy isimportant in historical education. In Japan, for example, the government’s teaching guidelines for highschool education (2009) require the fostering of the ability to apply historical knowledge to modernproblems.
Although there has been this growing interest in historical analogy, effective learning methods toachieve that goal have not been devised. As is evident from Drie and Boxtel’s (2008) excellent review ofsignificant research in historical learning, previous studies in this field have provided many learning
methods: discussions based on many sources, use of digital archives, thinking and writing withmultimedia tools, among others. However, these studies have failed to consider students’ ability to use
learning about the past as a means to solve present and future problems (Ryohei, 2011).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research question in this paper is what types of learning methods can be used successfully tosupport high school students in applying their knowledge of policies in world history to propose potential
policies that can address modern political issues. In addition, an evaluation of this method is conducted
for high school students. The theme of this lesson is “activating Japan’s economy” according to a usable
historical framework (Lee, 2005) that provides an overview of long-term change patterns, not a mere
outline skimming a few peaks of the past, that can bind historical causal relationships and modern ones.

RESEARCH DESIGN
Design Principles
There are three design principles that are important in supporting high school students in applying
their knowledge of policies in world history to propose potential policies that can address modern
political issues.
The first principle focuses on providing cards that describe various historical policies that improved
economic situations, along with a format of “problem,” “solution,” and “result,” and requiring students toapply those as analogies to a situation that would improve modern Japan’s economy. As is evident fromPoze (1977), remote analogies are crucial to the creative problem-solving process. Also, Sawyer (2008)
insists that a conversation among people from different backgrounds prompts the process of creativeanalogy. Moreover, in cognitive science, Sagard and Holyoak (1994) reveal that dividing information into
“problem,” “solution,” and “result” can promote the transfer of knowledge.
The second design principle involves noting differences between historical contexts and modern
ones. As is evident from Mansilla (2000), students who can successfully apply historical knowledge tomodern society have the ability to compare two cases and identify the differences between them. Also, incognitive science, Kurtz, Miao, and Gentner (2001) reveal that the ability to note the substantive
differences and similarities between different contexts both in the target object and base one caneffectively promote the transfer of knowledge.
The third design principle concerns constructing the learning process through game-based learning,which involves two students versus two students. It has been pointed out that historical analogy oftencauses the misuse of analogy, and thus needs careful discussion (Fisher, 1970). Moreover, historicalanalogy is a complex process and requires gradual learning steps. Game-based learning is an effective
method to address these problems because playing a game involves participating in conversations related
to the game, including the multiple perspectives of the players who are all working toward the same goal
(Duke, 1975). Also, because the game system makes many components interactive, the players must
devise micro-creative actions to achieve a single goal (Salen & Zimmerman, 2011). Therefore, the gameshould be composed of two students versus two students—two students to apply historical relationships tomodern ones and two students to check the applied policies.

Design
Design of game tools
First, we designed 16 cards that describe the policies that various famous figures in world history
proposed to improve economic situations. The content of each card consists of 3 sentences: the historicalcontext of the policy (“problem”), how the policy was implemented (“solution”), and what the result was(“result”). Moreover, the 16 cards are divided into four categories: political policies (4 cards), economicpolicies (4 cards), cultural policies (4 cards), and social policies (4 cards), all of which were connected tothe issue of improving economic situations. The policies are selected according to various eras and world
regions, and all the historical individuals are popular figures in Japan’s world history textbooks. Figure 1
shows a sample of the card. It corresponds to the first design principle.
We also designed a game board with a map of Japan to foster connections between historicalpolicies and students’ pre-existing knowledge. The Japanese map is divided into eight regions. It
corresponds to the second design principle.

Figure 1. Example of a card used for historical analogy

Design of game rules
Next, we designed game rules for applying historical policies to modern ones using the following
game tools. This game is named “CHRONOFUL,” and the goal is to generate many policies that will
improve Japan’s economic situation through historical analogy, thereby addressing Japan’s economicproblems. This is a game based on taking turns, and the players are divided into pairs. Points can be won
in two ways: One point is given for each region of Japan (1–3 points are given for each region’s GDP),
when students apply their knowledge of policies in world history to propose potential policies to address
modern political issues. The other point is given for improving the policies that are generated throughhistorical analogy (0–2 points are given according to the quality of both teams’ discussions). The gameends when either team has changed the historical policies to modern ones in all four categories. The teamthat gets more points is the winner. This game design corresponds to the third design principle.
This game is composed of actions that are based on taking turns, and one turn consists of four steps.
After janken, either team can take actions. After that, the other team can do the same actions. After one
team has finished its turn, each team draws two new cards, and this process is repeated until the end.
Figure 2 describes the game setting and the process of the game.
(1) Choosing a historical policy for analogy
Either team chooses one historical card from the two cards in their hand to play the game using
historical analogy. In this step, a policy is still historical. This phase corresponds to the first designprinciple.
(2) Applying the historical policy to a modern context
Next, the teams must present a historical policy and the policy they have generated for improving a
region’s economy in modern Japan through a card to the opposing team. At this time, they must include
their perspectives on the characteristics of the region. In this step, a policy is changed from a historical toa modern one. This phase corresponds to the first design principle.
(3) Indicating differences between the historical context and the modern one

Next, the opposing team can indicate the differences between the historical context and the modernone. In this step, they give a hint so as to provide a better analogy. This phase corresponds to the second
design principle.
(4) Improving the policy
Next, the opposing team can improve the policy such that it is more suitable to a modern context. In
this phase, a historical policy is changed to one that is more suited to a modern context. This phasecorresponds to the second design principle.

Figure 2. Game setting and the process of the game

Evaluation
We examined the effectiveness of the card game with 36 high school students. First, we compared
the students’ pre- and post-test scores concerning their knowledge of policies that address modern Japan’seconomy. In the test, students had to write down as many policies as possible that address modern Japan’s
economy within 10 minutes. The number of policies was counted in a group unit (N = 9). In addition, thepolicies were labeled according to four categories: political policies, economic policies, cultural policies,
social policies, and the number in each category in the pre- and post-tests was analyzed.
Next, we conducted rounds of protocol analysis to demonstrate whether the game rules helped
students to place historical policies into their specific modern contexts and learn how the students
interacted while playing the game. We expected that the policy would be changed from a historical one toa modern one gradually along the (1)–(4) steps; thus, we analyzed each turn (N = 63) in regard to whether
the policy the students presented in (2) and (4) added to a peculiar word in modern Japan (ex.
“automotive industry in Toyota ”). Moreover, we analyzed the factors of the process of success.

RESULTSThe comparison of the test scores indicated that the students were able to name more policies thatwould stimulate Japan’s economy (p < .01) after they played the game. Table 1 shows the results of aWilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. Moreover, interesting results were obtained by analyzing thepolicies labeled in each category. In the pre-test, the students tended to name more policies related topolitical and economic perspectives than cultural and social ones. However, in the post-test, the numberof policies concerning cultural and social perspectives increased significantly (p < .01). This means that
this game developed students’ ability to generate policies that would improve modern Japan’s economy,
especially in terms of cultural and social perspectives with which they were not very familiar before
playing the game.

Moreover, the protocol analysis demonstrated that the game rules helped the students to classify
historical policies into their specific modern contexts. They could add particular words in modern Japan
in 63 turns (= 100 %) in (2) phase and 45 turns (= 71 %) in (4) phase. This means that this game could
gradually support the process of performing a historical analogy. The results of analyzing how thestudents interacted in terms of success showed that the process became successful when the theme of thepolicy that they addressed was familiar or when they referenced the cards and the map repeatedly.
To summarize, this research provided a game method for supporting historical analogy and verified
its effect. In future research, the following question is the most important: How we can design a learning
environment that is suitable to the context of students’ lives?
Table 1. Results of Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test

REFERENCES（There is no need to check）
Abbott, C., & Adler, S. (1989). Historical Analysis as a Planning Tool. Journal of American Planning
Association, 55(4), 467-473.
David J. Staley. (2002). A History of the Future. History and Theory, Theme Issue, 41, 72-89.
Duke, R. (1975). Gaming: The Future's Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Drie, V. J., & Boxtel, V. C. (2008). Historical Reasoning: Towards a Framework for Analyzing Students’Reasoning about the Past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87-110.
Fisher, H. D. (1970). Historians’ Fallacies Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper andRow, Publishers.
Holyoak, K., & Thagard, P. (1980). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Massachusetts: TheMIT Press.
Kurtz, K.J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by Analogical Bootstrapping. The Journal ofThe Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417–446.
Lee, P. (2005). Historical literacy: theory and research. International Journal of Historical Learning，Teaching and Research, 5 (1), 25-40.
Mansilla, V. (2000). Historical Understanding Beyond the Past and into the Present. In Stearns, N. P.,
Seixas, P. & Wineburg, S. (Eds.), Knowing Teaching and Learning History: National andInternational Perspectives. New York: New York University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan. (2009). Koutou Gakkou
Gakushuu Sidouyouryou Kaisetsu. Tokyo: Kyouiku Shuppan.
Poze, T. (1983). Analogical Connections the essence of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 240-258.
Ryohei, I. (2011). Rekishi no Ingakannkei wo Gendai ni ouyousuru Chikara wo ikuseisuru Card Game
Kyozai no Design to Hyoka. Nihon Kyoiku Kougakkai Ronnbunshi, 34(4), 375-386.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Massachusetts: TheMIT Press.
Sawyer, K. (2008). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Basic Books.